Why no compromise is possible

Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):330–343 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Adherents of different moral views hold conflicting views on the permissibility of embryonic stem cell research. Pace Ronald Dworkin, no liberal compromise is possible. Whichever way the decision goes, some people will be deeply hurt and feel that basic moral principles are being flouted. And yet, when a majority exists in defence of such research, it should not hesitate to allow it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,518

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Human embryonic stem cell research: Middle-ground positions and moral compromise.Angeliki Kerasidou - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 57:167-169.
The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.Katrien Devolder - 2015 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Moral complicity in induced pluripotent stem cell research.Mark T. Brown - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
65 (#329,283)

6 months
4 (#1,279,871)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Torbjörn Tännsjö
Stockholm University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Life's Dominion.Melissa Lane & Ronald Dworkin - 1994 - Philosophical Quarterly 44 (176):413.
Personal Rights and Public Space.Thomas Nagel - 1995 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 24 (2):83-107.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism.Torbjörn Tännsjö - 1998 - Edinburgh University Press.
Harming some to save others.Frances Kamm - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 57 (3):227 - 260.

View all 12 references / Add more references